Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> Obviously edb
>>> doesn't feel the need, since Dave's not been ordered to :-)
>> I'm left to my own devices as far as community work is concerned. Which
>> is nice :-)
>
> Well, if edb had customers *using* it, I'm sure they would tell you to
> do it even if you didn't w
>> Obviously edb
>> doesn't feel the need, since Dave's not been ordered to :-)
>
> I'm left to my own devices as far as community work is concerned. Which
> is nice :-)
Well, if edb had customers *using* it, I'm sure they would tell you to
do it even if you didn't want to :-)
//Magnus
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Richard Huxton wrote:
>> Dave Page wrote:
>>> Also, three just seems like a sensible number to maintain. I kinda
>>> like Magnus' idea to put older releases into a sort of 'retired' mode
>>> though, and build only the binaries for PostgreSQL itself.
>> The other option woul
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Richard Huxton wrote:
>> Dave Page wrote:
>>> Also, three just seems like a sensible number to maintain. I kinda
>>> like Magnus' idea to put older releases into a sort of 'retired' mode
>>> though, and build only the binaries for PostgreSQL itself.
>> The other option woul
Richard Huxton wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>>
>> Also, three just seems like a sensible number to maintain. I kinda
>> like Magnus' idea to put older releases into a sort of 'retired' mode
>> though, and build only the binaries for PostgreSQL itself.
>
> The other option would be for one or more Win
Dave Page wrote:
Also, three just seems like a sensible number to maintain. I kinda like
Magnus' idea to put older releases into a sort of 'retired' mode though,
and build only the binaries for PostgreSQL itself.
The other option would be for one or more Windows users to step forward
and sa
>>> Right. and my original point in starting this thread is that it would
>>> be valuable to the community if all this information were gathered up
>>> and documented somewhere.
>> Go for it! :)
>
> I suppose I should have seen that coming ... :)
Yes I believe that would have been pretty obviou
In response to "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >> But it's also important to point out that a number of community
> >> members are on the hook to support old versions due to their day
> >> jobs; with Tom/Red Hat/7.3 (or is it 7.4?) probably being the best
> >> example. IIRC Sun's
>> But it's also important to point out that a number of community
>> members are on the hook to support old versions due to their day
>> jobs; with Tom/Red Hat/7.3 (or is it 7.4?) probably being the best
>> example. IIRC Sun's support policy is 5 years, so presumably someone
>> will have
In response to Jim Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Jan 27, 2007, at 3:41 AM, Dave Page wrote:
> >> Does the PostgreSQL project have any similar policy about EoLs?
> >> Even just
> >> a simple statement like, "it is our goal to support major branches
> >> for 2
> >> years after release" or some
On Jan 27, 2007, at 3:41 AM, Dave Page wrote:
Does the PostgreSQL project have any similar policy about EoLs?
Even just
a simple statement like, "it is our goal to support major branches
for 2
years after release" or some such?
I've been considering only maintaining the current and previou
Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> > --- Original Message ---
> > From: Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: 29/01/07, 21:12:30
> > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Predicted lifespan of different PostgreSQLbranches
&
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I am pretty amazed people are considering shortening the release cycle
> > for our most popular platform.
>
> Are you volunteering to back-port and test all the Windows fixes that
> never went into 8.0?
>
> I think we should either d
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am pretty amazed people are considering shortening the release cycle
> for our most popular platform.
Are you volunteering to back-port and test all the Windows fixes that
never went into 8.0?
I think we should either do that, or admit that we're not
> --- Original Message ---
> From: Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: 29/01/07, 21:12:30
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Predicted lifespan of different PostgreSQLbranches
>
> I am pretty amazed people are conside
Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> > --- Original Message ---
> > From: Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> > Sent: 28/01/07, 17:39:00
> > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Predicted lifespan of different PostgreSQL branches
&
In response to Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Bill Moran wrote:
> > Does the PostgreSQL project have any similar policy about EoLs?
>
> Is it a question for community support, or for various
> commercial vendor's support policies?
I'm not worried about vendors. If we're relying on vendor suppo
Bill Moran wrote:
> Does the PostgreSQL project have any similar policy about EoLs?
Is it a question for community support, or for various
commercial vendor's support policies?
How long companies selling "postgresql support" support each
release could be one of the more important characteristics
> --- Original Message ---
> From: Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Sent: 28/01/07, 17:39:00
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Predicted lifespan of different PostgreSQL branches
>
> Dave Page wrote:
> > Also, three jus
Dave Page wrote:
> Also, three just seems like a sensible number to maintain. I kinda
> like Magnus' idea to put older releases into a sort of 'retired' mode
> though, and build only the binaries for PostgreSQL itself.
But would that give people who have previously used the full installer
an upgr
Dave Page wrote:
Oisin Glynn wrote:
My 8.2c,
Having 8.1 end of life this soon after the release of 8.2 seems pretty
harsh.
Yeah, I agree. In part I'm basing the idea to support the current and 2
previous branches on the amount of work required to build a complete set
of point releases in
Oisin Glynn wrote:
My 8.2c,
Having 8.1 end of life this soon after the release of 8.2 seems pretty
harsh.
Yeah, I agree. In part I'm basing the idea to support the current and 2
previous branches on the amount of work required to build a complete set
of point releases in one go - 3 seems m
Tom Lane wrote:
> Oisin Glynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Anyway I think that a fair case could be made for dropping the 8.0
>>> branch now, and maybe 8.1 too, as far as Windows support goes.
>
>> My 8.2c,
>> Having 8.1 end of life this soon after the release of 8.2 seems pr
Oisin Glynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Anyway I think that a fair case could be made for dropping the 8.0
>> branch now, and maybe 8.1 too, as far as Windows support goes.
> My 8.2c,
> Having 8.1 end of life this soon after the release of 8.2 seems pretty
> harsh.
That's fi
> It should also be considered that it is probably more difficult to
> alleviate the concerns of people about using even the *best* Open
> Source database on a Windows platform (please don't bash us for using
> windows for now it is a necessary evil)
As much as I would like to say the community
Tom Lane wrote:
Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I've been considering only maintaining the current and previous 2
versions in pgInstaller (the Windows binary distro). But that's a *lot*
harder to maintain than just PostgreSQL because of all the bundled
stuff. In other words, when 8.3 is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/27/07 11:50, Bill Moran wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
[snip]
> Of course, the end of "official" support for a project doesn't prevent folks
> with an interest from continuing to support it unofficially.
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
> -- Start of PGP signed section.
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sat, 2007-01-27 at 08:41 +, Dave Page wrote:
> > >
> > > What do people think about that? Does anyone think it would be an
> > > unreasonable policy?
> >
> > I don't think
a feeling I have). But the important part is that either way I think
it's way too early to drop 8.1.
I agree. Started a project last summer, using 8.1, rollout is now. > 1 year
for database projects is not unusual, and having the database release
dropped during this time is not nice.
Harald
Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I've been considering only maintaining the current and previous 2
>> versions in pgInstaller (the Windows binary distro). But that's a *lot*
>> harder to maintain than just PostgreSQL because of all the bundled
>> stuff. In other words, whe
> Anyway I think that a fair case could be made for dropping the 8.0
> branch now, and maybe 8.1 too, as far as Windows support goes. What
> you want to do going forward is a different decision --- these are
> edge cases because of the newness of the port.
Well as someone who has literally thous
Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've been considering only maintaining the current and previous 2
> versions in pgInstaller (the Windows binary distro). But that's a *lot*
> harder to maintain than just PostgreSQL because of all the bundled
> stuff. In other words, when 8.3 is out, the 8.0
Dave Page wrote:
> Bill Moran wrote:
>> Does the PostgreSQL project have any similar policy about EoLs? Even just
>> a simple statement like, "it is our goal to support major branches for 2
>> years after release" or some such?
>
> I've been considering only maintaining the current and previous 2
Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 2007-01-27 at 08:41 +, Dave Page wrote:
> >
> > What do people think about that? Does anyone think it would be an
> > unreasonable policy?
>
> I don't think so. You should build 8.0 binaries until the community
> stops m
Hi,
On Sat, 2007-01-27 at 08:41 +, Dave Page wrote:
>
> What do people think about that? Does anyone think it would be an
> unreasonable policy?
I don't think so. You should build 8.0 binaries until the community
stops maintaining PostgreSQL 8.0.
This is what we do for RPMs -- I know it is
Bill Moran wrote:
> Does the PostgreSQL project have any similar policy about EoLs? Even just
> a simple statement like, "it is our goal to support major branches for 2
> years after release" or some such?
I've been considering only maintaining the current and previous 2
versions in pgInstaller (
Shane Ambler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bill Moran wrote:
>> Does the PostgreSQL project have any similar policy about EoLs?
> There is no set time frame planned that I know of.
No, there's no agreed-on policy. So far there's really only been one
release that we've actively decided to decommi
Bill Moran wrote:
I spend some time googling this and searching the Postgresql.org site, but
I'm either not good enough with the search strings, or it's not to be found.
I'm trying to plan upgrades so that we don't upgrade needlessly, but also
don't get caught using stuff that nobody's supportin
I spend some time googling this and searching the Postgresql.org site, but
I'm either not good enough with the search strings, or it's not to be found.
I'm trying to plan upgrades so that we don't upgrade needlessly, but also
don't get caught using stuff that nobody's supporting any more.
The Fre
39 matches
Mail list logo
